But do college campuses have anywhere near the ability to actually investigate what constitutes that “proof”? They aren’t doing independent rape kits and running DNA and whatnot, are they?

Quite the opposite, I think. Once the police have concluded their investigation, there would be a clear cut precedent for proceeding on the case, so the school’s decision could be swift and with authority. Or do you think that schools have better investigative resources than the police, and are more likely to be able…

So for what crimes, in your opinion, should accused people not be afforded protection? Are you generally against the bedrock of the American legal system, or do you just oppose it in certain cases?

Do you always advocate vigilantism, or only in the case of rape?

In what context, specifically? It seems that constitutional due process would demand that in certain specific legal contexts they be referred to as “accusers,” because “victim” presupposes the existence of a crime that has yet to be proven in court, thus prejudicing the proceedings against the defendent. (Same reason…

But everything you’re saying about a police investigation retraumitizing people also applies to a school investigation, doesn’t it?

How on earth is it your place to say that? We’re constantly railing on here about how the recipients of actions are the ones who get to decide whether or not they’ve been distressed. This is akin to saying “he just slapped your ass, it’s a stretch to say you were distressed by it.” Yes, they’re frat bros, so we’re…

But they are still investigating a criminal matter, even though they don’t have the resources or skill to properly do so. And I’d love to see an instance where a student was kicked off campus for murder without there being a corresponding criminal investigation.

This isn’t even worth a response. Grow up.

That’s a false analogy, because abusers can be left, and don’t have to be dealt with. When a cop decides to have an interaction with you, however, you literally have no choice but to deal with them back: the only thing you have control over is how you choose to respond. Given how trigger happy certain of them…

This whole vogue of “distraction” rhetoric is entirely tiresome and unhelpful. People are entirely capable of having more than one simultaneous thoughts about a subject.

With that said, do you think NOT respecting them lessens your chance of being murdered? Until there’s widespread change to the way things happen, it seems like it might be smart to not actively piss off the guy with the gun. Being disrespectful serves literally no other purpose than ego fulfillment.

Can we also label insufferable hack writers of overrated premium cable shows?

I’m still newish to the site, but am I right that Drew Magary’s gimmick is to do hot takes about hot takes?

Right. And the info blurb of a Gawker writer’s article is presumably aimed for people beyond a NY audience.

You’re a Drake apologist. Please stop talking about hip hop, you obviously know nothing about it.

That makes sense.

The “compelling medical evidence” you cite is the opinion of two doctors who perform gender reassignment surgeries — they don’t cite any studies on the actual issue, or indicate that they’ve done any specific research on the implications of gender reassignment for sports, and make casual statements like “she would prob…

Fair point.

I’ll believe this is common if you can show me another article on Gawker where a non-New York writer identifies their location solely by the neighborhood they live in.